Bombay High Court
Anil S/O. Manoharrao Shrirao vs State Of Maha., Through Its ... on 5 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
0512WPs1165.16+4-Judgment 1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1165 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Anil S/o Manoharrao Shrirao, Aged 44 years,
Occu: Service, R/o C/o Maniram C. Nasre,
Ward No.6, Sawargaon, Tq. Narkhed, Distt.
Nagpur-441 306.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary
Ministry of Secondary Education,
ig Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Region, Nagpur.
3. Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. Shinde Shikshan Sanstha through its
President, C/o Rani Laxmibai Junior
College, Sawargaon, Tq. Narkhed, Distt.
Nagpur-441 306.
5. Rani Laxmibai Junior College, Sawargaon,
Tq. Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur-441 306,
through its Headmistress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.R.L.Khapre, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.A.A.Madiwale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Anand Parchure, counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO. 1166 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Arun S/o Mahadeorrao Kakade, Aged 50
years, Occu: Service, R/o Sharad Pawar
Colony, Ward No.2, Sawargaon, Tq.
Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur-441 306.
::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2016 00:32:27 :::
0512WPs1165.16+4-Judgment 2/11
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary
Ministry of Secondary Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Region, Nagpur.
3. Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. Shinde Shikshan Sanstha through its
President, C/o Rani Laxmibai Junior
ig College, Sawargaon, Tq. Narkhed, Distt.
Nagpur-441 306.
5. Rani Laxmibai Junior College, Sawargaon,
Tq. Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur-441 306,
through its Headmistress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.R.L.Khapre, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.A.A.Madiwale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Anand Parchure, counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO. 1335 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Ku. Meena Pratapsingh Solanki, After
marriage Sau. Meena Chandrapalsingh
Gaherwar, Aged 40 years, Occu: Service, R/o
Rani Laxmibai Kanya Vidyalaya, Sawargaon,
At Sawargaon, Tq. Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur-
441 302.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary
Ministry of Secondary Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Region, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2016 00:32:27 :::
0512WPs1165.16+4-Judgment 3/11
3. Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. Shinde Shikshan Sanstha through its
President, C/o Rani Laxmibai Junior
College, Sawargaon, Tq. Narkhed, Distt.
Nagpur-441 306.
5. Rani Laxmibai Junior College, Sawargaon,
Tq. Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur-441 306,
through its Headmistress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.R.L.Khapre, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.A.A.Madiwale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Anand Parchure, counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO. 3428 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Shri Ramesh Champatrao Pandharkar, Aged
49 years, Occu: Service, R/o Sharad Pawar
Teachers Colony, House No.1713 at
Sawargaon, Tah. Narkhed, District Nagpur-
441 302.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary
Ministry of Secondary Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Region, Nagpur.
3. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. Shinde Shikshan Sanstha through its
President, C/o Rani Laxmibai Kanya
Vidyalaya Sawargaon, Tq. Narkhed, Distt.
Nagpur-441 306.
::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2016 00:32:27 :::
0512WPs1165.16+4-Judgment 4/11
5. Rani Laxmibai Kanya Vidyalaya, Sawargaon,
Tq. Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur-441 306,
through its Headmistress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Narendra Thombre, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.A.A.Madiwale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Anand Parchure, counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO. 1627 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- ig Ku.Nirmala Sahadeorao Somkuwar, Aged 46
years, Occu: Service, R/o Sharad Pawar
Colony, At Sawargaon, Tq. Narkhed, Distt.
Nagpur-441 306.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary
Ministry of Secondary Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Region, Nagpur.
3. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. Shinde Shikshan Sanstha, through its
President, C/o Rani Laxmibai Junior
College, Sawargaon, Tq. Narkhed, Distt.
Nagpur-441 306.
5. Rani Laxmibai Junior College, Sawargaon,
Tq. Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur-441 306,
through its Headmistress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.R.L.Khapre, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.A.A.Madiwale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Anand Parchure, counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2016 00:32:27 :::
0512WPs1165.16+4-Judgment 5/11
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 05.12.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical
and pertains to the entitlement of the petitioners to the house rent
allowance, they are heard together and are decided by this common
judgment.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petitions
are heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties.
By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the
order of the Deputy Director of Education, holding that the petitioners
would be entitled to the house rent allowance from December, 2014.
The petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers in the
schools that are situated in rural areas. According to the petitioners, the
petitioners are residing at their head quarters, whereas it is the case of
the respondent-management that the petitioners are not residing at the
places where they are posted, but are residing elsewhere and are
claiming the house rent allowance. The petitioners have relied on the
report of the Deputy Director of Education that the petitioners are
0512WPs1165.16+4-Judgment 6/11
residing in the villages where they are posted, whereas the management
has produced certain material on record to point out that the petitioners
are not residing at their head quarters, as on enquiry, it was found that
the houses in which the petitioners were said to have been residing had
been let out.
It would not be necessary for us to consider the factual
issue that is in dispute in this case, as it is informed to this court by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue involved in this case
stands answered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment of the
Division Bench at the Aurangabad Bench, dated 19/10/2015 in Writ
Petition No.5822 of 2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the
Maharashtra Rajya Prathamik Shikshak Sangha, Jalgaon was allowed
after holding that it was not necessary for the teachers to reside at their
headquarters to claim the house rent allowance. It is stated that in
effect, by the said judgment, the Division Bench at the Aurangabad
Bench has held that the payment of house rent allowance to a teacher
cannot be stopped merely because the teacher is not residing at the
head quarters. On the basis of the aforesaid decision, the petitioners
have sought a direction against the respondents to pay the house rent
allowance to the petitioners with effect from September, 2009.
It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that though the
Deputy Director of Education had asked the managements in 2010 to
submit the salary bills of the petitioners by including the house rent
0512WPs1165.16+4-Judgment 7/11
allowance therein, the managements did not do so. It is stated that
representations were made by the petitioners to the Deputy Director of
Education to ensure the implementation of his directions. It is stated
that the matter lingered in view of the pendency of the representations
before the Education Authorities and ultimately by the impugned order,
the Deputy Director of Education has directed that the house rent
allowance could be released in favour of the petitioners with effect from
December, 2014. According to the petitioners, they were continuously
making representations to the concerned authorities and the
management and they should not be deprived of the house rent
allowance from September, 2009, as per the impugned
communications. It is stated that there is no reason recorded in the
impugned communications for granting the house rent allowance with
effect from December, 2014. It is stated that in the circumstances of the
case, specially, in view of the judgment dated 19/10/2015 in Writ
Petition No.5822 of 2014, this court may allow the writ petition and
direct the respondents to pay the house rent allowance to the
petitioners from September, 2009.
Shri Parchure, the learned counsel for the management,
submitted that the claim of the petitioners for grant of house rent
allowance from September, 2009 is time barred. It is stated that if the
house rent allowance was not paid to the petitioners in September,
2009, the petitioners should have approached this Court within a period
of three years from the date on which the house rent allowance became
0512WPs1165.16+4-Judgment 8/11
due and payable. It is stated that mere making of representations to the
Education Authorities cannot stop the period of limitation. It is stated
that if the Deputy Director of Education had directed the management
to send the salary bills by including the house rent allowance and the
management had not done so, it was necessary for the petitioners to
have filed the writ petition, at the earliest. It is stated that there is no
explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ
petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, did not
dispute the position of law as laid down by the judgment dated
19/10/2015 in Writ Petition No.5822 of 2014 (Maharashtra Rajya
Prathamik Shikshak Sangha, Jalgaon v. The State of Maharashtra and
others).
Shri Madiwale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the judgment of
the Division Bench at the Aurangabad Bench is implemented by the
State Government and the State Government has passed the
government resolution dated 07/10/2016, thereby deleting the
condition of residing at the head quarters for claiming the house rent
allowance. It is stated that the petitioners would be entitled to the
house rent allowance in view of the government resolution.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that the relief sought by the petitioners needs to be granted partially.
The petitioners would not be entitled to claim the arrears of house rent
0512WPs1165.16+4-Judgment 9/11
allowance from September, 2009. If the Deputy Director of Education
had asked the management to send the salary bills of the petitioners by
including the house rent allowance in the same, it was necessary for the
petitioners to have approached this court within a short time from the
issuance of the said communication, if the management was not
implementing the directions of the Deputy Director of Education. The
petitioners have filed these writ petitions in the year 2016. It is well
settled that a monetary claim to which an employee is entitled, could be
granted only for a period of three years, preceding the date of filing of
the writ petition. It would be necessary to refer to the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 13
(Jai Dev Gupta
v. State of H.P.) , (2007) 9 SCC 274 (Shiv Dass v. Union of India),
(1995) 5 SCC 628 (M.R.Gupta v. Union of India) and (2008) 8 SCC
648 (Union of India v. Tarsem Singh) in this regard. The mere making
of representations by an employee for seeking the monetary benefit
would be inconsequential while considering sufficient cause for delay in
filing the petition. It is well settled that making of successive
representations would be inconsequential as they cannot stop the period
of limitation. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (1995) Supp.4 SCC 593
(Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu v. R. D. Valand),
(1997) 11 SCC 13 (Jai Dev Gupta v. State of H.P.), (2009) 3 SCC 281
(Yunus (Babobhai) A. Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra) and
(2006) 4 SCC 322 (Karnataka Power Corpn.Ltd. v. K. Thangappan) in this
regard.
0512WPs1165.16+4-Judgment 10/11
Though the petitioners would not be entitled to the arrears
of house rent allowance from September, 2009, it would be necessary to
hold that the petitioners would be entitled to the house rent allowance
for a period of three years, preceding the date on which the respective
petitions were filed. The case of the petitioners is covered by the
judgment dated 19/10/2015 in Writ Petition No.5822 of 2014. Since it
is held in the judgment dated 19/10/2015 in Writ Petition No.5822 of
2014 that it would not be necessary for the petitioners to reside at the
head quarters for claiming the house rent allowance, the petitioners
would be entitled to the house rent allowance irrespective of the fact
whether they were residing at the head quarters or not. In pursuance of
the judgment dated 19/10/2015 in Writ Petition No.5822 of 2014, the
State Government has issued the government resolution dated
07/10/2016 stating therein that it would not be necessary for the zilla
parishad teachers to reside at the head quarters for claiming the house
rent allowance.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid and for the reasons
recorded in the judgment dated 19/10/2015 in Writ Petition No.5822 of
2014, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are
modified. It is hereby declared that the petitioners would be entitled to
the arrears of the house rent allowance for a period of three years,
preceding the date of filing of the respective writ petitions. The
management should submit the bills for the payment of the arrears of
house rent allowance to the Deputy Director of Education, within one
0512WPs1165.16+4-Judgment 11/11
month. The Deputy Director of Education should release the arrears of
house rent allowance in favour of the petitioners, within three months.
The management is directed to include the house rent allowance
payable to the petitioners in their monthly salary bills. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
